Letter to the Editor:
Vegetarians should support in-vitro meat
Published Aug. 26, 2005
As a vegan and supporter of animal rights, I was appalled by the lack of interest displayed by Kim Adams' column in the Aug. 23 issue concerning in-vitro meat.
Although people might be closed-minded toward vegetarianism, a reduction to apathy with respect to persuasion is about as unethical as eating meat itself. A true moral vegetarian believes eating meat is an act of murder, which is something that is unacceptable despite years of desensitization.
The introduction of in-vitro meat, if it became popular, would limit or perhaps eventually eliminate factory farming — the worst deed man has done to animals.
In-vitro meat would probably cost more, but if restaurants and grocery stores started stocking their shelves full of a healthier product that tastes the same, it might take off. Animals would be mass-produced at a lesser rate, and it would also help to spare our precious South American rainforest land that is selfishly being destroyed for cattle grazing.
Availability, taste, cost, name and tradition are all factors that fuel the meat industry the way it is. In-vitro meat could possibly slide by without anyone noticing, something the Gardenburger couldn't do, and man would unintentionally be taking a step in the right direction as far as treatment of animals are concerned.
It may be unnatural, but it would be better for everyone including the animals. Although abandoning meat altogether would have a greater impact, it is even less likely to happen than replacing it with in-vitro meat.